Back in 1965 the company made a proposal so bold that it bordered on insane: a giant helicopter with a rotor diameter bigger than the length of a football field, capable not merely of transporting a Saturn 5 first stage, but of actually catching it in midair as it fell on a parachute.

There were other proposed means for the recovery of the SI-C including a winged flyback version and a parachute-assisted approach outlined in an 18-page booklet prepared by Boeing:

Robert PearlmanEditor

Posts: 35369From: Houston, TXRegistered: Nov 1999

posted 01-28-2008 11:12 AM

Robert PearlmanEditor

Posts: 35369From: Houston, TXRegistered: Nov 1999

posted 01-28-2008 11:12 AM

Robert PearlmanEditor

Posts: 35369From: Houston, TXRegistered: Nov 1999

posted 01-28-2008 11:13 AM

Robert PearlmanEditor

Posts: 35369From: Houston, TXRegistered: Nov 1999

posted 01-28-2008 11:14 AM

Hart SastrowardoyoMember

Posts: 3059From: Toms River, NJRegistered: Aug 2000

posted 01-28-2008 11:56 AM
I've seen mention of this before, as well as of recovering and reusing Saturn's other stages, in a book, which name escapes me (it also had info on the X-20, Lockheed StarClipper proposal, and McDonnell's Project Deimos manned Mars mission proposal).

As I understand it, the factors against such a proposal was not only the limited number of Saturn flights, but also the increased deadweight at having to carry recovery systems (although, admittedly, I don't recall how much weight a Saturn V can carry vs how much it actually carried for a lunar mission, and whether or not it could theoretically carry the recovery systems).

Lou ChinalMember

Posts: 1253From: Staten Island, NYRegistered: Jun 2007

posted 01-28-2008 04:06 PM
I think this is one of the things that sounds good, until you start thinking about the details.

As I remember there was a similar plan for the Redstone. The studies said that a rate of decent of 40 feet per second was the maximum for the booster. I wonder if the guys who designed the solid rocket boosters ever read it?

In the end I guess they figured it was too much trouble. The Navy had there hands full getting the capsule back.

micropoozMember

Posts: 1386From: Washington, DC, USARegistered: Apr 2003

posted 01-28-2008 06:18 PM

quote:Originally posted by Hart Sastrowardoyo:...in a book, which name escapes me

The book of which you are thinking may be "Pocket Encyclopedia of Spaceflight in Color - Frontiers of Space" by Philip Bono and Kenneth Gatland, 1969, MacMillan Co. It has concepts for recovering the Saturn SIVB stage and the others you mention.

I remember seeing concepts for recovering the S1C stage elsewhere too. I can't find the book right now, but I believe it was a book by vonBraun with "Frontier" also in the title, circa about 1969. Maybe someone else can home in on this one?

art540Member

Posts: 432From: Orange, California USARegistered: Sep 2006

posted 01-29-2008 08:18 AM
I can imagine the disbelief for NAA after all the trouble to lighten the S-II they then had to contend with more weight on the S-1C (unless the F-1s were uprated).

kr4mulaMember

Posts: 635From: Cinci, OHRegistered: Mar 2006

posted 01-29-2008 11:59 AM
I love it that in the brochure the chart depicts the number of flights out beyond 100! The same people who made that graph must've helped plan the early shuttle program when they were anticipating that many flights... per year!

E2M Lem ManMember

Posts: 846From: Los Angeles CA. USARegistered: Jan 2005

posted 01-29-2008 03:42 PM

quote:Originally posted by art540:I can imagine the disbelief for NAA after all the trouble to lighten the S-II...

I have found a lot of documents here about the reuse of Saturn S-II stages, different engine configurations and even it's use as a first stage!

All of the contractors wanted to reuse their products. See Godwin's new lunar reference book for those ideas!

CNewportMember

Posts: 13From: Potomac, MD USARegistered: Nov 2005

posted 01-29-2008 08:17 PM
I think their estimate of the labor and refurbishment needed to certify an S1-C booster for re-flight is in error. Once you get sea water into the circuits and structure, it takes considerable more labor than they realize to make anything ready for flight.

Space Cadet CarlMember

Posts: 129From: Lake Orion, MichiganRegistered: Feb 2006

posted 09-29-2011 12:43 PM

quote:Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:There were other proposed means for the recovery of the SI-C including a winged flyback version and a parachute-assisted approach outlined in an 18-page booklet prepared by Boeing.

Thank you for posting this amazing leaflet. It was published at a time when we thought we could do anything.

Jay ChladekMember

Posts: 2270From: Bellevue, NE, USARegistered: Aug 2007

posted 09-29-2011 02:11 PM
I believe the main reason why this idea was proposed wasn't necessarily for the lunar program, but rather Apollo Applications (AAP). 1965 was the year the first AAP office opened up and George Mueller had some grand plans for it as in that period from 1965 to 1968 when AAP got funded as its own program, there were some serious proposals for multiple space stations, lunar bases and other things and they would need multiple Saturn launches to fly. Marshall was also thinking along similar lines as well since once Apollo ended, von Braun would need to find another program for the Huntsville based NASA center to work on as Saturn was their baby and the Saturn production line would be the first element to shut down towards the end of the program.

Of course in those years, NASA was dreaming rather big. Could they have done this? Yes, possibly. But it would have been a very expensive prospect. All things considered though, do you think a proposal for recoverable SRBs in the shuttle program would have been made if somebody hadn't already proposed something similar for the S-1C? Sometimes I wonder.

minipciMember

Posts: 290From: London, UKRegistered: Jul 2009

posted 09-29-2011 03:00 PM

quote:Originally posted by micropooz:I believe it was a book by von Braun with "Frontier" also in the title, circa about 1969.

Von Braun wrote a book called "Space Frontier". Would that be it?

Hart SastrowardoyoMember

Posts: 3059From: Toms River, NJRegistered: Aug 2000

posted 09-29-2011 03:47 PM

quote:Originally posted by Jay Chladek: All things considered though, do you think a proposal for recoverable SRBs in the shuttle program would have been made if somebody hadn't already proposed something similar for the S-1C? Sometimes I wonder.

Granted the S-1C recovery proposal was done in the mid '60s, but I would think that even without the proposal, something on the shuttle would have been made recoverable.

The environmental movement kicked in in the early '70s, when shuttle was being thought about and designed. That, and the energy crisis in 1973/74 made being "green" and reducing costs in some sort of way part of the national conscience.

moorougeMember

Posts: 2185From: U.K.Registered: Jul 2009

posted 11-07-2011 10:50 AM
This cartoon from the 'Apollo Chronology' sums up an unknown artist's thoughts on the recovery of a Saturn V first stage.

Tony GuidryMember

Posts: 22From: Lafayette, Louisiana, USARegistered: Jun 2009

posted 02-16-2013 08:50 PM
Recently, I was viewing the CBS News coverage of the Apollo 14 launch on YouTube. Shortly after separation of the S-IC first stage, at 5:02 into the video, Wally Schirra made a comment to Walter Cronkite, "This is the one we hope to fly back sometime in the future."

Did NASA ever have any plans or the capability of recovering the first stage of the Saturn V for re-use? I was not aware of any recovery system being included on the S-IC.

Editor's note: Threads merged.

Robert PearlmanEditor

Posts: 35369From: Houston, TXRegistered: Nov 1999

posted 09-12-2016 10:57 AM

Saturn Booster paraglider recovery tests conducted by NASA Langley Research Center using a Rogallo wing are described in Technical Note D-1932 (21 pages with photos and diagrams): "Free-Flight Investigation of the Deployment, Dynamic Stability, and Control Characteristics of a 1/12-Scale Dynamic Radio-Controlled Large Booster and Parawing" by Sanger M.Burk, Jr.

HeadshotMember

Posts: 591From: Streamwood, IL USARegistered: Feb 2012

posted 09-12-2016 03:18 PM
Has any liquid-fueled rocket engine that has been immersed in ocean water ever been re-launched?

Paul78zephyrMember

Posts: 553From: Hudson, MARegistered: Jul 2005

posted 09-12-2016 07:30 PM
Did anyone ever consider a non-water vertical landing for the S-IC like the Blue Origin New Shepard or SpaceX Falcon? Now that would have been something.

HeadshotMember

Posts: 591From: Streamwood, IL USARegistered: Feb 2012

posted 09-13-2016 07:03 AM
Blue Origins plans to attempt a vertical landing of the first stage of their huge New Glenn launch vehicle. While slightly smaller in diameter than a S-IC, it will be taller (longer).

Robert PearlmanEditor

Posts: 35369From: Houston, TXRegistered: Nov 1999

posted 09-13-2016 07:33 AM
I'm not aware of any proposals to vertically land the S-IC.

Assuming for the moment that there were sufficient fuel reserves (which very well might not have been the case), the lack of a modern guidance computer and GPS would present a challenge. (For example, SpaceX requires GPS for its droneship to maintain its position.)

There were proposals for a winged S-IC that would fly itself back to Kennedy Space Center and land like an aircraft.

Jim BehlingMember

Posts: 1017From: Cape Canaveral, FLRegistered: Mar 2010

posted 09-13-2016 08:11 AM

quote:Originally posted by Headshot:Has any liquid-fueled rocket engine that has been immersed in ocean water ever been re-launched?